The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 271 No 7266 p352-353
13 September 2003

Society summary

Branch representatives' meeting: Council's response to resolutions

This report, approved by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Council at its August meeting, gives the Council's response to the resolutions passed at the Society's branch representatives' meeting in May (PJ, 31 May, pp773–775)

Medicines packaging

That there should be an extensive review of the packaging of medicinal products currently available, including generic products, with regard to the marked similarities between different packaging, in an attempt to reduce dispensing errors and patient confusion (British Pharmaceutical Students Association):

That patient information leaflets are made less frightening and more user friendly for the general public (Brighton).

The Council recognises the potential for medication errors that can result from similarities in the packaging of medicines, and the potential for harm to patients from the misinterpretation of patient information leaflets.

To address both these issues, the Society will arrange a meeting with representatives from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, the British Generic Manufacturers Association, the National Patient Safety Agency, the National Office of Animal Health and other key stakeholders. The Society will express the concerns of the profession, and seek to establish a process for identifying products where similarities in packaging and labelling have been a factor in medication error.

The meeting will also establish the actions that need to be taken to ensure that these products will in future comply with current best practice guidance for the labelling and packaging of medicines. It is hoped that the output from this meeting will aid the Department of Health in achieving its target of reducing the number of medication errors by 40 per cent by 2005.

The Society will also raise the issue of patient information leaflets (PILs) at the meeting and elicit views on how to ensure that PILs are written in clear and understandable terms and that the information contained within them delivers a clear patient benefit.

The Society will be playing an active role in "Ask about medicines week" in October 2003, using the branch public relations officer network. The campaign aims to increase public knowledge and awareness about using medicines safely and effectively.

Branch funding cuts

That we deplore the reduction in branch funding and propose that future changes only be made after a period of consultation with the branches (West Metropolitan).

That the recent decisions to reduce branch funding and to change the way in which branch grants are allocated should be condemned and reconsidered (Shropshire; Northumbrian).

The Council remains committed to the Society's branch and regional network. The decision to reduce branch funding by £25,000 was taken in October 2002 as part of the Society's budgetary process. During the 2004 budgeting process, the Council has been proactively seeking a budget to develop membership activities.

The main impetus for changing the way that the funding was distributed in the 2003 budget was the fact that some branches were holding considerable balances that remained unspent from year to year while others felt that they did not have the funds they needed for their programmes. Rather than claw back unspent grant allocations, the Council wanted to encourage branches to use the funding for the benefit of their members and to help take the profession forward locally. Good governance requires that funds are used effectively and are accounted for.

The branch secretaries were informed of these decisions within a matter of days and, at their meeting on 16 October 2002, a thorough discussion was held on how the decisions might be implemented. Several of the elements of the new funding framework were proposed at this meeting.

In March 2003, it was announced that a further £25,000 would be made available to branches to fund meetings on the new Charter. This was taken up by 51 branches, which between them held 39 meetings.

The implementation of the new way of distributing the funding included a review of the change in the first year. At the time of writing, branches have been asked for their views to feed in to the review process.

At the beginning of 2003, the membership team invited any branch secretary who has a difficulty as a result of the changes to contact them to discuss their problem and seek to solve it.

Modernisation of the Society

That the Society should observe the modernisation principles agreed by the Young Pharmacists Group, National Pharmaceutical Association and Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee in any changes it recommends to the structure of the Society (West Metropolitan).

The Council recognises the important concerns voiced within the profession on aspects of its reform programme. In response, the Council reaffirms that it has no intention of giving up or of weakening the Society's functions of leading, developing and acting to promote the profession of pharmacy. The aim is for the Society to retain its integrated functions and for it to be equally effective both as a regulator and as a professional body.

So far, external timetables have meant that the emphasis has been on the Society's regulatory functions. But there is also an excellent opportunity to refocus and improve the Society's professional functions. More can be done to help pharmacists deliver quality in their practice, to develop the profession of pharmacy, and to raise pharmacy's profile by contributing to wider policy debates and advising on pharmaceutical issues.

The contribution of lay members to the Council's agenda should help ensure that Society policy is robust and in touch with what matters to patients and the public. Lay people can also be powerful advocates for pharmacy, strengthening the profession's voice and helping us to safeguard public confidence and trust. Nevertheless, it would be feasible and appropriate for work on some issues within the Council's policy framework to be taken forward by groups comprised mostly or entirely of pharmacists.

The Society's advocacy role involves bringing influence to bear on any issue — regulatory or professional — that affects the profession's ability to deliver a safe, high quality service. This includes, when necessary, opposing government policy. The Society is independent of government and will remain so. The Society cannot represent pharmacists' individual or commercial interests, and it cannot act in conflict with the public interest. However, the Society's view of the public interest need not always coincide with that of the government of the day. This is the situation now — reform will not change this.

The Society serves both public and profession and its arrangements for accountability reflect this. The public is represented by Parliament, and the Society is accountable to Parliament for the exercise of its regulatory functions. Accountability to pharmacists is expressed primarily through the election of pharmacists to the Council.

The Council has reaffirmed its commitment to the Society's future as the integrated professional and regulatory body for pharmacy. If these roles are to be discharged effectively and credibly, the Society must have one governing body, accountable for all its functions, with a majority of pharmacists elected by the membership. Two other models were appraised by the Council on 2 July 2003, alongside the existing policy for a reformed Council. These were the "two board" model proposed at the special general meeting and a model whereby the Council delegated authority for all regulatory functions to an autonomous board. The Council concluded that these options would not produce the type of organisation we want to see: a credible, efficient and effective professional and regulatory body for pharmacy. The Council's existing model was reaffirmed but it was recognised that more work needs to be done to describe how the professional leadership and development functions could be discharged within this model.

The Council is committed to finding better ways to engage the profession and others much more in the Society's work, to help develop the profession and to ensure that decisions are properly informed by professional expertise. Further work is being taken forward as a priority to describe a credible and appropriate structure associated with the governing Council, which could support the full range of the Society's functions and fulfil the assessment criteria developed by the Council. This will be a vital strand of work to ensure that the future Society will fulfil its responsibilities to the profession and to the public and that pharmacy will continue to develop its contribution to health and health care.

Charitable status

That in relation to the Society seeking charitable status, (a) there must be full consultation with the membership using all available information, (b) the membership should be satisfied that charitable status does not contravene the Society's Charter, (c) the membership must be reassured that the Society will not give away "the family silver" and (d) a referendum of all members must be held before Council's proposal for charitable status is taken further (Oxfordshire; Hull).

 The Council has decided that, given the number of priorities that it has to address, it will not pursue charitable status for the Society in the near future.

Society's publications

That the Council should not proceed with its proposal to hive off its publications activities to a separate company (Cheltenham and Gloucester).

 It is emphasised that the creation of a wholly-owned limited liability company for the management of the Society's publications will not be a prelude to their disposal, either in part or in total. Nor will it mean any change to the current mission for publications:

To provide quality information-based products to support professional practice in pharmacy and related health science markets and to grow the financial contribution to the Society at a regular and sustainable manner.

The Council acknowledges that the Society's imprints — The Pharmaceutical Press, PJ Publications and the BNF Publications — have been extremely successful and are highly regarded by pharmacists and other health care workers throughout the world. However, it is also matter of concern that they operate in an increasingly competitive environment in which sales have to be gained in the face of strong, internationally based competition. Substantial sales to the membership, which once formed the commercial bedrock for publications like Martindale, can no longer be taken for granted. Even The Pharmaceutical Journal and the British National Formulary face threats to their dominance of their respective markets.

In the light of this risk picture, the Council has agreed a two-fold response. First, staff have been asked to put together a detailed business plan for the future of all Society publications. This plan is to pay particular attention to the opportunities and threats, and to identify the actions required to maximise the former and minimise the latter. It is to cover a five-year period and be subject to annual review by the Council.

Secondly, the established organisational arrangements are to be reviewed since the Council believes that, in an increasingly competitive environment, they are not well suited to future publishing prosperity. Currently, the publishing activity is embedded within the Society's directorate structure, but the Council considers that they should be managed according to business disciplines, and that this objective is best achieved by placing them within a separate but wholly-owned limited liability company. The Council is aware that this model has been pursued by many other professional bodies who have similar publishing operations and it has usually proved a stimulus to growth and development. Apart from these benefits to the business itself, the Society would also derive other, largely financial, advantages from such an arrangement. However, the details of this are being developed by staff, and the Council will debate them later in the year in the context of the business plan.

Safeguards will be built into the company's articles of association to protect the assets and to ensure that its mission company remains entirely in the interests of the Society. As noted in the original response to the motion, any severance of the link between the Society and its publications would be to the great detriment of both, and in particular to the competitive advantage currently enjoyed by the publications themselves.

Further safeguards will ensure that the Council can exercise more effective oversight than is currently the case. The business plan will detail improved governance arrangements to ensure that the overall commercial performance and publishing strategies of the company are agreed and monitored by the Council but in a way that does not impede the need to act swiftly and decisively in response to changing business demands.

ID cards for "active" pharmacists

That when pharmacists are required to submit regular continuing professional development records to remain an "active" practitioner, then these pharmacists should be issued annually with a form of identification that is easily recognisable to employers, other health care professionals, and pharmacy colleagues. (Harrow and Hillingdon).

The policy, processes and methods by which the "active" practitioner is recorded must be carefully considered. The issue of some form of identification needs to be addressed under the policy, and whatever procedures and processes are devised it is essential to ensure that the issue of the identification is robust. If it is to be issued annually, an expiry date will need to be included on the identification document or card.

Publishing new members' names

That the names of newly registered pharmacists should be published in at least one national broadsheet newspaper (British Pharmaceutical Students Association).

The membership unit has recently made enquiries with regard to such a list appearing in either The Times or The Independent. The quoted costs for this were £20,000 and £7,500, respectively.

The Council has decided that this is not a priority at this time.